George Osborne MUST now U-Turn 'Granny Tax'!

boozercruiser

hugheskevi wrote: »

That is correct in a narrow sense. And illustrates the issue well.

Tax not raised in one place has to be raised in another. So maybe the Triple Lock uprating of Basic State Pension could be scaled back, Winter Fuel Payments reduced, free TV licences abolished and such like to make good the extra cost. That just changes the which group of pensioners suffer most.

But I don't think that is what pensioners want. So alternatively, someone else can suffer. Perhaps reduce disabled benefits, scale Housing Benefit back further, or freeze salaries of the police for example. Or just put in on the tab, and let young folk and kids pay it back sometime in the future.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, most of those groups have very vocal lobby groups, who are all aghast that any measure should be taken against the folk they represent.

Hence it is appalling that poor vulnerable pensioners should have to choose between heating and eating, but equally shocking to suggest the disabled should have to work more at a time of recession when they already are at a disadvantage in the labour market. Children, who were in no way responsible for the crisis, should of course not face any reductions. Nobody should be forced to move from their home, even if it is in a very expensive area. Soldiers, the police and nurses also should bear little of the burden, given they didn't cause the crisis either.

And so it goes on. Everyone agrees cuts are necessary, as long as they are other people's cuts. Not so much a case of "We're all in this together" as "You're all in this together" would seem to be more appropriate for all the various lobby groups and unions.

So then it gets back to the tax the rich mantra, and crucify bankers. That group don't really bother with lobby groups, as they don't need to win hearts and minds. So it is something that all the groups can agree to victimise But he who pays the piper calls the tune, and so the whole merry-go-round carries on.

Your post in respect of this issue is by far the most intelligent, eloquent and thoughtful response up to now.

Yes, everybody is posting a view here out of self interest. I am alright Jack is the order of the day.

People with children do not want the various generous allowances reduced so they are yelling even louder than the kids, and so on. For one...

Child Benefit. There are two separate amounts, with a higher amount for your eldest (or only) child. You get £20.30 a week for your eldest child and £13.40 a week for each of your other children.

Nice work if you can get it.

Rather selfishly some might claim, I don't want to have to pay an extra £83 next year in Taxes, and a new Pensioner will not be happy to pay an extra £325 he would not otherwise have paid but for the Allowance going down to £9,205.

The annoying thing is that we could all be a lot richer if all Governments did not either waste our money or just simply give it away.

I suggest that we could save £27 billion tomorrow if we withdrew from the European Union and abolished our extravagant overseas aid programme. Those two steps alone would provide far more funds than everything raised by the granny tax, the pasty tax and the proposed charity tax. And recently it was announced that the UK has lent the IMF an extra £10billion.

And now with Spain maybe going belly up that will cost us very dear in Bail Out to the IMF.

While I am on a rant, I read that all MPs have or are being given IPads. Small beer in the overall scheme of things. But you get my drift?

Anyway...your post was lovely. Thank you.:T

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9239438/MPs-to-get-free-iPads-at-taxpayers-expense.html

The House of Commons has decided that all 650 MPs are eligible for brand new devices which sell for at least £400 each.
The cost will be offset by around £50,000 as MPs will be required to hand back an old laptop or computer in return for an iPad.
However, the total bill for the new mobile tablets is still likely to run into hundreds of thousands of pounds, especially after monthly costs of downloading data are included.
A House of Commons advisory committee this year claimed MPs could save money by using mobile tablet-style computers to keep up to date with their parliamentary business.
Its recommendation was this week accepted by the House of Commons Commission, chaired by John Bercow, the Speaker.

Moby

gadgetmind wrote: »

Ah yes, our left-wing media.

What a great source of solid facts.

Guardian ...left wing? hardly! Its pretty mainstream...just a tad left of centre. Of course it depends where you stand yourself politically.

IMO they are driven to succeed more by wanting to create something they can
be proud of. Punitive taxation backs the message that the UK media (and sadly
some people) exude, which is that hard work and success should be punished. IME
you don't tend to see this in most other countries.

My heart bleeds for all those entrepreneurs taking their knowledge and energy to....where ever! I'd like to see your evidence of this?

If you're sitting around waiting for a break, then it's pretty certain that
you're not an entrepreneur. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news

Not 'sitting around'...just saying some people get a push up in life... trust fund, middle class background etc...you see it tends to make a difference re. lifes opportunities in this country. Not always.. but it helps big time.

I see Baroness Warsi's been at it again in today's Torygraph....and no I don't read it I came across it:)

Quote Boozercruizer

I suggest that we could save £27 billion tomorrow if we withdrew from the
European Union and abolished our extravagant overseas aid programme. Those two
steps alone would provide far more funds than everything raised by the granny
tax, the pasty tax and the proposed charity tax. And recently it was announced
that the UK has lent the IMF an extra £10billion.

We are part of an international community and we have responsibilities and commitments. 50% of our trade is with the EU. I've just returned from India and the poverty is horrendous. I know the have nuclear bombs and a space programme blah blah...but simply on a human level we have to do what we can IMO.

teajug

The House of Commons has decided that all 650 MPs are eligible for brand new devices which sell for at least £400 each. The cost will be offset by around £50,000 as MPs will be required to hand back an old laptop or computer in return for an iPad.
However, the total bill for the new mobile tablets is still likely to run into hundreds of thousands of pounds, especially after monthly costs of downloading data are included.
A House of Commons advisory committee this year claimed MPs could save money by using mobile tablet-style computers to keep up to date with their parliamentary business.
Its recommendation was this week accepted by the House of Commons Commission, chaired by John Bercow, the Speaker.

Cameron paid 20k for his toy to play Fruit Ninja on it. I expect the rest of his millionaire cabinet want the same on the tax payer for them to lose or leave in taxis like they did when laptops was the crazy with MP.
I am sure Cameron was elected to do something else than play games on iPad or chillaxing with his millionaire friends/cabinet.

Wonder how long did it take for them to think up that family to live in garages or sheds. They have decided not charge homeowner’s council tax anymore if they convert their garages or sheds for family. What elderly parent would want to live in a garage or a shed, we have seen one you boy confined to live in a places like this and it was worse than a prison for punishment. But there again it may be better than some care homes that the elderly and disabled has to pay 10 of thousands of pounds for and being physically abused for that privilege.

I feel the problem is the UK is that we have the Tories in for so long now that they just want to get rid of the elderly and disable people. First we had Maggie and then ‘new Labour’, Blair and Brown and now Cameron and his millionaire cabinet. I think it is time for a real change.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9272356/Turn-off-your-iPad-David-Cameron-and-start-dealing-with-Britains-debt.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/9276511/David-Cameron-how-karaoke-and-tennis-make-PM-a-chillaxing-champ.html


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2147689/Boy-11-left-hungry-freezing-filthy-coal-bunker-YEAR-bullying-parents.html

gadgetmind

Moby wrote: »

Guardian ...left wing? hardly! Its pretty mainstream...just a tad left of centre. Of course it depends where you stand yourself politically.

I don't really stand anywhere and make my own decision regards every issue based on objective evidence. I also subscribe to both The Guardian and The Telegraph. Balance!

My heart bleeds for all those entrepreneurs taking their knowledge and energy to....where ever! I'd like to see your evidence of this?

I see it nearly every day.

However, things are improving. There are signs that the tax situation is improving, and schemes such as SEIS are letting more experienced entrepreneurs mentor and fund younger ones. Trust me, we have some *fantastic* young people, really smart, really driven, and they just need help with some of the fine detail.

They are also *very* mobile, and their skills are in demand across the EU and around the world, so losing them (perhaps forever) is easy. Fortunately, we now have a government that seems to recognise this, and the trend is encouraging.

Not 'sitting around'...just saying some people get a push up in life... trust fund, middle class background etc.

Entrepreneurs don't need a push. And while it's useful to be able to ascribe their drive and success to some early-life advantage, this fails the "necessary and sufficient" test.

If you doubt any of what I say, please get yourself along to some Business Angel open days and actually talk to the people at the sharp end.

P.S. I hate the word "entrepreneur", partly because it sounds French, and partly because I struggle to spell it!

MonkeyMad

@boozercruiser

No, not a spin doctor, just someone who has the ability to think through their arguement and question your random figures., rather than rely on your dopey little songs and out of context sound bites.

As for the £40K, just because Ed Balls also mentioned it it doesn't make it any more relevant, and at least he had the decency to say that you would need to be earning a million to get that, which is something you neglect to state (doesn't sound as good does it). As for NARPO, given the average police pension is £15600 I worry less about ex-officers starving in the streets.

Before I was married there was the marriage allowance. When I got married it wasn't there any more. Was I any worse off than before, no. Would I have been better off previously, yes. Since I didn't loose income, it doesn't matter to normal people, since tax rates are never fixed going forwards. These are two different states, but you seem unable to comprehend that.

If the £83 you will be worse off next year is really the difference between eating and heating, I'll write you a check for the difference. Alternatively we could discuss how it is you might save an extra £1.50 a week in order to survive. We might find this is more emotive cobblers you have made up too?

Perhaps we ought to move back to the 1925 position and restore your age allowance, but remove all additional assistance that has been brought in since then, but that wouldn't suit you either would it because you want every group but yours to be suffering some financial discomfort don't you?

I sense an intense jealousy in you than some people earn a lot more than you do. Despite the fact that you probably paid !!!!!! all into a pension. Or taxes, but I'm sure you paid in all your working life, which obviously entitles you to whatever you want whenever you want it.

boozercruiser

teajug wrote: »

Cameron paid 20k for his toy to play Fruit Ninja on it. I expect the rest of his millionaire cabinet want the same on the tax payer for them to lose or leave in taxis like they did when laptops was the crazy with MP.
I am sure Cameron was elected to do something else than play games on iPad or chillaxing with his millionaire friends/cabinet.

Wonder how long did it take for them to think up that family to live in garages or sheds. They have decided not charge homeowner’s council tax anymore if they convert their garages or sheds for family. What elderly parent would want to live in a garage or a shed, we have seen one you boy confined to live in a places like this and it was worse than a prison for punishment. But there again it may be better than some care homes that the elderly and disabled has to pay 10 of thousands of pounds for and being physically abused for that privilege.

I feel the problem is the UK is that we have the Tories in for so long now that they just want to get rid of the elderly and disable people. First we had Maggie and then ‘new Labour’, Blair and Brown and now Cameron and his millionaire cabinet. I think it is time for a real change.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9272356/Turn-off-your-iPad-David-Cameron-and-start-dealing-with-Britains-debt.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/9276511/David-Cameron-how-karaoke-and-tennis-make-PM-a-chillaxing-champ.html


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2147689/Boy-11-left-hungry-freezing-filthy-coal-bunker-YEAR-bullying-parents.html

I found all of your post very interesting and extremely informative. The paper links tell us a lot about our rotten society right now.

I have voted Tory the very first when I was around 33 in Thatchers time because in the main I wanted to buy my council house. My Uncle would never ever talk to me again because I did that.

Me being born in Liverpool like.:D:D Not exactly a Tory stronghold!;):laugh:

My next change in vote was for Labour and Tony Blair. Another disaster. next for David Cameron. Already another disaster. In between voting for them, once or twice Liberal.

Dog Poo the lot of them.:mad:

So now what? Perhaps only UKIP now!:question:

jem16

boozercruiser wrote: »

My logic says that if Osborne would have left the Allowance at £10,500 instead of reducing it to £9,205 the retiring Pensioner would have been £325 better off. Yes?

Your Logic. Pass.;):eek:

£10,500 - £9205 = £1295.

£1295 @ 20% tax = £259

Your logic ( or more likely listening to the tabloid press rather than working out the figures yourself ) seems illogical.

MonkeyMad wrote: »

@boozercruiser

No, not a spin doctor, just someone who has the ability to think through their arguement and question your random figures., rather than rely on your dopey little songs and out of context sound bites.

Quite.

boozercruiser

MonkeyMad wrote: »

@boozercruiser

No, not a spin doctor, just someone who has the ability to think through their arguement and question your random figures., rather than rely on your dopey little songs and out of context sound bites.

As for the £40K, just because Ed Balls also mentioned it it doesn't make it any more relevant, and at least he had the decency to say that you would need to be earning a million to get that, which is something you neglect to state (doesn't sound as good does it). As for NARPO, given the average police pension is £15600 I worry less about ex-officers starving in the streets.

Before I was married there was the marriage allowance. When I got married it wasn't there any more. Was I any worse off than before, no. Would I have been better off previously, yes. Since I didn't loose income, it doesn't matter to normal people, since tax rates are never fixed going forwards. These are two different states, but you seem unable to comprehend that.

If the £83 you will be worse off next year is really the difference between eating and heating, I'll write you a check for the difference. Alternatively we could discuss how it is you might save an extra £1.50 a week in order to survive. We might find this is more emotive cobblers you have made up too?

Perhaps we ought to move back to the 1925 position and restore your age allowance, but remove all additional assistance that has been brought in since then, but that wouldn't suit you either would it because you want every group but yours to be suffering some financial discomfort don't you?

I sense an intense jealousy in you than some people earn a lot more than you do. Despite the fact that you probably paid !!!!!! all into a pension. Or taxes, but I'm sure you paid in all your working life, which obviously entitles you to whatever you want whenever you want it.

Thank you for your direct to me note. Now one back.

First, if you are going to write me that cheque please make sure that you spell it correctly.:D AND you could do with running a spell checker over your whole post!

Second, you are wrong also "I sense an intense jealousy in you than some people earn a lot more than you do". (I do suppose that you mean THAT).

Actually M8, I am truly not envious of anyone no matter how rich they are. I live in a lovely detached Bungalow on the edge of a lovely semi rural Welsh village.

I have a half an acre Garden with a river at the bottom of it.

I have no Mortgage and I am very happily Married thank you very much.:j

We go on lots of holidays in this country, and we are down to Bournemouth for two weeks very soon.

So me envious of ANYONE rich or poor M8? NO Sir, NO. O.K.?

Try some other motive then if you can. Cheers.:beer:

Remember the 75p pension rise? Remember the taking away of the 10p tax rate? Remember the married man's allowance going, going, gone? Remember the mortgage tax relief going, going, gone? These were all measures which penalised the hard working thrifty and ended by both the Labour and Conservative Governments. They all perished on the vine by way of Government weed killer.

Now of course perishing on the vine will be the Elderly Tax Allowance.:mad:

MonkeyMad

Ah, so YOU won't be making a decision between eating or heating then, it must be someone else you know, perhaps an ex-police officer? Your lifestyle sounds quite comfortable, so one must conclude your campaign is driven by personal greed, a sense of personal entitlement, altruism at others expense?

I have never received most of those allowances since they had all been removed when I might have wanted them. I was never worse off because of it since I never had them. I'm guessing you had the benefit of all of them, and just want a little bit more. Despite the fact that those paying for you don't have the same breaks you did?

I notice you never tell us which or the burgeoning allowances you get you would like to give up. With your playboy lifestyle you obviously don't need them all so which one would you like to give to a pensioner who doesn't pay tax?

The care I take with my spelling is vaguely proportional to how much intellectual interest is sparked by the debate. Your campaign and basis of argument is somewhat sub-tabloid, so I don't really care that much about a relatively comfortable pensioner moaning about how they are likely to be impoverished by paying (slightly) more tax.

I'm not jealous of two weeks in Bournemouth. At all.

jem16

boozercruiser wrote: »

First, if you are going to write me that cheque please make sure that you spell it correctly. AND you could do with running a spell checker over your whole post!

Always a good idea to make sure you have no spelling mistakes before commenting on someone else's spelling.

boozercruiser wrote: »

If YOU where Chancellor it is pretty obvious Pensioners would be your last priority.

boozercruiser wrote: »

Your not a Government Spin Doctor by any chance are you Monkey Mad? But your handle seems to suit you.

I've highlighted the mistakes just to give you a clue.

Remember the taking away of the 10p tax rate?

Then replaced with the higher personal allowance to compensate. It's also still available to some (mostly pensioners) through savings interest.

Remember the married man's allowance going, going, gone?

Replaced with the Child Tax Credit.

Remember the mortgage tax relief going, going, gone?

The one which you presumably benefited most from?

It was also mostly in place when mortgage interest rates were 15% plus.

These were all measures which penalised the hard working thrifty and ended by both the Labour and Conservative Governments. They all perished on the vine by way of Government weed killer.

Just the way tax is. I remember paying 22% tax instead of 20% tax as it is now.

Now of course perishing on the vine will be the Elderly Tax Allowance.

To be replaced by higher personal allowances for all - apart from those earning over £150k.